accumulo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Drob <mad...@cloudera.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] CHANGES Documents
Date Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:38:41 GMT
I'd prefer just notes from the latest major release in the CHANGES file.
You could always call for a vote on this. :)


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Josh Elser <josh.elser@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/20/14, 10:23 AM, Keith Turner wrote:
>
>> >>  There have been a lot of good ideas mentioned.  What do we want to do
>>>> for
>>>>
>>>>> >>>1.5.1?  I would not be opposed to waiting a few days on the
1.5.1
>>>>> release
>>>>> >>>if someone wants to create nice user friendly release notes.
 Or for
>>>>> >>>1.5.1
>>>>> >>>we could just continue to do what was done for 1.4.X releases.
  For
>>>>> >>>1.6.0
>>>>> >>>I think we should create a user friendly summary of whats
important
>>>>> in
>>>>> >>>the
>>>>> >>>release.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>>
>>>> >>I'd prefer to not hold up 1.5.1 for something like this, and would
>>>> rather
>>>> >>just follow suite with 1.4. By this, you mean having all CHANGES
from
>>>> 1.4.X
>>>> >>and 1.5.0 in addition to the 1.5.1 changes, correct? Is this
>>>> acceptable to
>>>> >>everyone? I know there were other suggestions made and don't want
to
>>>> >>prematurely squash discussion.
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>> >
>>> >I was thinking taking the 1.5.0 changes file and adding the 1.5.1 stuff
>>> to
>>> >it.  If we did anything w/ 1.4, we would would only want to take 1.4.0
>>> >changes and add that after 1.5.0.  Not all changes in 1.4.[1.2.3.4] are
>>> in
>>> >1.5 series and any changes that are in both are hopefully marked
>>> properly
>>> >in jira and already in the 1.5.X list. Since the 1.4.0 changes were not
>>> >listed in 1.5.0, I am not neutral on adding that in 1.5.1.
>>> >
>>>
>> s/not neutral/not not neutral/
>>
>>
>>
> Because that clarification makes things simpler :P
>
> I'm still unsure if 1.5.0 did not contain 1.4 changes intentionally or by
> omission. I feel like Christopher had said that was unintentional, but I'm
> not sure anymore. I'm not super opinionated on whether or not 1.5 contains
> 1.4 changes. I can see arguments for and against doing it and am fine
> seeing it either way.
>
> Overall, I'd rather just get to some consensus on the subject.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message